1) What does the story of the EFV suggest about the importance of considering what a project’s key mission is supposed to be prior to authorizing it?
2) The EFV has been labeled, “The wrong weapon for the wrong war at the wrong time.” Do you agree or disagree with this characterization? Why?
3) Why does the EFV failure illustrate the dangers of long lead-times for weapon systems? In other words, when a project’s development cycle takes 20 years from start to finish, what dangers do the project developers face when the project is finally operational?
This case is an interesting example of how Pentagon procurement policies, misguided strategies, and poor project execution can combine to spend enormous money on a weapon system that is not only not needed, but does not work reliably. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) was originally designed for storming beaches, despite the fact that modern warfare calls into serious question the need for such a vehicle since the last time the U.S. Marines were called upon to invade a hostile shoreline was 1951. Further, the system, filled with the most sophisticated technology, was hampered by “gold plating” to the point where it couldn’t perform any of its functions and was notoriously unreliable. When the project was finally cancelled in 2011, it had cost nearly $3 billion in sunk (i.e., non-recoverable) costs. The case is great for students because there is a wealth of information on the Internet about the EFV, including some impressive (but staged) field tests and live fire examples.